Judge strikes down 19th-century law, making abortion legal in Wisconsin
Wisconsin Judge Strikes Down 19th-Century Abortion Law, Making Procedure Legal Up to 20 Weeks
A historic ruling by a Wisconsin judge has overturned a 19th-century law that prohibited abortions, effectively legalizing the procedure in the state for pregnancies up to 20 weeks. This decision comes after the reinstatement of the 1849 law following the overturn of Roe v. Wade. However, Judge Diane Schlipper has interpreted the law to exclude “consensual abortions.”
Defining Consensual Abortions
According to Schlipper, a consensual abortion refers to the intentional termination of pregnancy by the mother, which is distinct from “feticide.” Feticide, on the other hand, involves the termination of pregnancy without the consent of the mother, such as the death of the unborn child resulting from battery. The judge clarified that the 1849 law only applies to cases of “feticide.”
The Controversial Wisconsin Statute
Despite the distinction made by Schlipper, the Wisconsin statute is titled “Abortion” and carries severe penalties. Doctors who facilitate abortions could face up to six years in prison on felony charges and fines of up to $10,000. The law also defines an unborn child as a “human being from the time of conception.”
“This unfortunate decision authorizes abortion violence against preborn children, women, and families across Wisconsin,” expressed Carolyn McDonnell, litigation counsel for Americans United for Life.
Reaction and Future Plans
While Democrats and abortion-rights groups are celebrating the decision, they are also determined to push for further expansion of abortion access in the state. Michelle Velasquez, chief strategy officer for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, stated, “While we celebrate this ruling, there is more to be done. We will continue essential work to help protect and expand reproductive freedom in Wisconsin so that everyone who needs comprehensive reproductive healthcare in our state can get the nonjudgmental and compassionate care they deserve.”
Pro-Life Wisconsin legislative director Matt Sande criticized Schlipper’s reasoning and called for an appeal of the decision. The local district attorneys defending the law also have the opportunity to file an appeal, potentially leading to a state Supreme Court battle over abortion law.
Shortly after the overturn of Roe v. Wade, Governor Tony Evers and Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul challenged the state’s 174-year-old abortion law.
How did Schlipper argue that consensual abortions should not fall under the restrictions of the 1849 law in Wisconsin?
Ntional termination of a pregnancy by choice, without any medical or legal necessity. In her ruling, Schlipper argued that the 1849 law was intended to address cases where abortions posed a risk to the health of the mother, or if the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. Therefore, she determined that consensual abortions, which do not involve any of these circumstances, should not fall under the restrictions of the law.
This ruling is a significant victory for reproductive rights advocates in Wisconsin, who have long argued that women should have the right to make decisions about their own bodies. They have contended that such decisions should not be regulated by outdated laws that fail to reflect modern medical understanding and social values.
Opponents of the ruling, however, claim that Schlipper has overstepped her authority and undermined the democratic process. They argue that the decision should have been left to the state legislature, which is responsible for enacting and amending laws. Critics also fear that this ruling could set a dangerous precedent, potentially opening the floodgates for a wave of legal challenges against other long-standing laws in the state.
The Impact of the Ruling
With this ruling, Wisconsin joins the growing number of states that have recently loosened restrictions on abortion. Similar laws have been passed or upheld in states like New York, Virginia, and Illinois, reflecting a broader trend towards increasing access to reproductive healthcare across the country.
Reproductive rights organizations in Wisconsin have praised the ruling for recognizing a woman’s right to control her own reproductive choices. They argue that this decision will help prevent unnecessary suffering for women seeking to terminate pregnancies in the first 20 weeks.
However, the ruling does not mean complete unrestricted access to abortion in Wisconsin. Abortions after the 20-week mark are still subject to stringent regulations, and the state maintains a mandatory waiting period and counseling requirements before the procedure can be performed.
Looking Ahead
This ruling is likely to have far-reaching implications for the future of reproductive rights in Wisconsin and potentially beyond. Proponents of reproductive rights are hopeful that this decision will lead to a more comprehensive review of outdated abortion laws across the country, ultimately paving the way for greater access to safe and legal abortions. Conversely, opponents of abortion rights are concerned that this ruling will embolden efforts to further restrict or even ban abortions.
Ultimately, the legality and accessibility of abortion remain contentious issues in the United States, with deep divisions in public opinion. While this ruling represents a step forward for reproductive rights in Wisconsin, the debate is far from over, and the future of abortion laws nationwide remains uncertain.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
